Citation Nr: 21066325 Decision Date: 10/29/21 Archive Date: 10/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-50 442 DATE: October 29, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of an injury to the Veteran's left upper extremity, claimed as a left shoulder, left elbow, and left wrist disability, is granted. VETERAN'S CONTENTIONS The Veteran contends that he should be granted service connection for his left shoulder, left elbow, and left wrist disability. See December 2016 VA 21-526. The Veteran stated that he was injured during basic training when he was hit with a pugil stick. See February 2017 Correspondence and July 2021 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 2-5. The Veteran also explained that he was initially treated with Bengay and Ace wrap. Id. However, after a few weeks, the treating doctor stated that his injury was not improving, so he was put in a cast for 6 weeks. Id. The Veteran explained that he continued in basic training with no limited duty status. Id. The Veteran explained that he was told by his previous doctor that his bicep muscle was retracted due to a traumatic blow to his left elbow, but this doctor passed away. Id. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has experienced chronic residuals from an in-service injury to his left upper extremity with functional limitations such as pain, limitation of motion, and numbness in his left upper extremity, since service. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for service connection for the Veteran's left upper extremity are met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303(a), 3.307. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1970 to August 1970. This matter comes before the Board of Veteran's Appeal (Board) on appeal from a March 2017 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Veteran selected a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge on his October 2018 VA Form 9. In July 2021, the Veteran testified at a Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript of the hearing is of record. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran filed a claim for a left shoulder disability, left elbow disability, and left wrist disability respectively. However, the Board finds that the issue on appeal is service connection for the residuals of an injury to the left upper extremity, as it more accurately describes the disability for which the Veteran is seeking service connection. Entitlement to service connection for the residuals of an injury to the Veteran's left upper extremity. Generally, in order to prove service connection, there must be competent, credible evidence of (1) a current disability, (2) in-service incurrence or aggravation of an injury or disease, and (3) a nexus, or link, between the current disability and the in-service disease or injury. See, e.g., Davidson v. Shinseki, 581 F.3d 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2009); Pond v. West, 12 Vet. App. 341 (1999). After reviewing the evidence of record, the Board finds that service connection for the residuals of an injury to the Veteran's left upper extremity is warranted in the instant case. Turning to the evidence of record, the Board finds that the Veteran has current residuals of an in-service injury of the left upper extremity, including, for example, mild DJD, which was confirmed by a March 2017 x-ray. See March 2017 VA Examination. Next, the Board finds that the evidence of record demonstrates an in-service injury. Specifically, the Veteran has repeatedly stated that he injured his left upper extremity during basic training exercise, when he was hit with Pugil stick. See February 2017 Correspondence; see also, July 2021 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 2-5. The Veteran contends that ever since this injury in basic training he has experienced functional limitations in his left upper extremity. See July 2021 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 10-11. As a layperson, the Veteran is competent to report on all things which he has personal knowledge derived from his own senses, including discussing his continuous symptoms of experiencing left upper extremity numbness, pain, and limitation in range of motion. See Layno v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 465, 470 (1994). The Board finds the Veteran's reports of the onset of pain in service, and continuous symptoms of left upper extremity numbness and pain since his service to be credible in the instant case. Lastly, regarding a link between the Veteran's left upper extremity disability and service, the Board finds that, as reported by the Veteran, his left upper extremity numbness and pain began in service and has continued to the present. See December 2016 VA 21-526, February 2017 Correspondence, and July 2021 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 10-11. The Veteran stated that he experienced numbness right after the in-service injury and it subsequently turned into pain and limited range of motion. See July 2021 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 10-11. Further, the Veteran's service treatment records (STRs) show that he complained of left upper extremity pain and swelling during service. See May 1970 and June 1970 STRs. Additionally, as stated above, the Veteran is competent to identify his continuous numbness and pain since service, establishing the onset of a chronic condition during service. See Charles v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 370, 374 (2002); Layno, 6 Vet. App. at 465. In addition to the Veteran's statements, there is negative opinion evidence against the claim. The Board, however, affords the March 2017 VA opinion little probative weight because the examiner failed to address the Veteran's contentions regarding the chronic nature of the condition incurred in service. The March 2017 VA examiner found that the Veteran's STRs did not reveal a ruptured bicep during service. See March 2017 VA Examination. However, the March 2017 did not address the Veteran's contention that in 1972, the surgeon observed the Veteran at work and stated, based on his observation, that he had a ruptured bicep. See February 2017 Correspondence. The examiner also did not address the Veteran's statements regarding continuous numbness, pain, and limited range of motion since the in-service injury. See July 2021 Board Hearing Trans. pp. 10-11. As the VA examiner failed to adequately consider the Veteran's reports of the incurrence of a chronic condition while still in service, the Board affords little probative weight to the March 2017 VA examination. Based on the Veteran's lay testimony and the evidence of record, the Board finds each of element of service connection is met. Accordingly, service connection for the Veteran's residuals from an injury to his left upper extremity is warranted. 38 U.S.C. § 5107 (b); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.303; Gilbert v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 49, 53-54 (1990). S.C. Krembs Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board S. Foster, Associate Counsel The Board's decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.